which 300mm lens....

gpa said:
Hi Neil no offense meant at all just my personal experience of Sigma, clearly there are happy owners out there so perhaps I just got unlucky. Sadly it has soured my feeling toward Sigma forever. On a plus note the 70-200 and the 100-300mm were stellar:thumbs:
Click to expand...

no offence taken at all matey, i understand some people have had bad experiences with sigma kit. i often joke i should play the lottery as i have 3 good copy sigmas :D
 
gpa said:
Hi Neil no offense meant at all just my personal experience of Sigma, clearly there are happy owners out there so perhaps I just got unlucky. Sadly it has soured my feeling toward Sigma forever. On a plus note the 70-200 and the 100-300mm were stellar:thumbs:
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you had a bad experience of this particular lens, I think it reflects the (possible) less than perfect quality control at Sigma, as there are many happy campers out there that are more than pleased with the lens.

The main reason I'm responding to your post, was the anxiety you raised regarding how soft it was a f2.8, and although I'm more than happy with the IQ of the lens, I thought I would just check, and it's as sharp at f2.8 as f4 and f5.6, just a slight vignetting at f2.8

I also compared it (at 200mm) against my canon 200mm F2.8L (which I know is sharp), and found you couldn't get a fag paper between the IQ at f2.8, although the bokeh on the canon was more pleasing.

So it put my mind at rest, and I'm not trying to shoot you down in flames, we all get a bit unlucky at times with photo gear, it's often a lottery.

When I was around 20 I was violently sick after drinking whisky most of the night, I've never touched whisky since, and even the smell of it makes me nauseous, but it hasn't had much of a dent on the sales of Johnny Walker :)

And I'm pleased the op has made his choice, I'm sure it will be a stellar performer.:thumbs:
 
Les McLean said:
I'm sorry you had a bad experience of this particular lens, I think it reflects the (possible) less than perfect quality control at Sigma, as there are many happy campers out there that are more than pleased with the lens.

The main reason I'm responding to your post, was the anxiety you raised regarding how soft it was a f2.8, and although I'm more than happy with the IQ of the lens, I thought I would just check, and it's as sharp at f2.8 as f4 and f5.6, just a slight vignetting at f2.8

I also compared it (at 200mm) against my canon 200mm F2.8L (which I know is sharp), and found you couldn't get a fag paper between the IQ at f2.8, although the bokeh on the canon was more pleasing.

So it put my mind at rest, and I'm not trying to shoot you down in flames, we all get a bit unlucky at times with photo gear, it's often a lottery.

When I was around 20 I was violently sick after drinking whisky most of the night, I've never touched whisky since, and even the smell of it makes me nauseous, but it hasn't had much of a dent on the sales of Johnny Walker :)

And I'm pleased the op has made his choice, I'm sure it will be a stellar performer.:thumbs:
Click to expand...


The softness was at 300mm on my samples (not a depth of field issue). I guess my main point is for £1000-1200 it is good value for money, for list price my opinion changes. As I said there are clearly happy campers out there so my personal opinions are not meant to offend.

Cheers:thumbs:
 
Do you have any experience of the f4 300 Af-D vs the current Af-S? Just forked out o the older Af-D but not sure I made the right choice and have 24hrs to decide if I want to return it and splash out the extra £300 for the current Af-S!

HELP!
 
Glidergoth said:
Do you have any experience of the f4 300 Af-D vs the current Af-S? Just forked out o the older Af-D but not sure I made the right choice and have 24hrs to decide if I want to return it and splash out the extra £300 for the current Af-S!

HELP!
Click to expand...

Optically the older D is sound, however it is not as quick to focus and will not take the newest TC's. For anything moving the AF S would be the preferred option, the AF S also has a closer focus distance.

Here is Thom Hogans reviews of both, he is fairly reliable.

300 f4 D

300 f4 AF S
 
Cheers. I read those reviews the other night and decided I was doing the right thing as I don't own any TCs yet. Going to try it out on some tame bird of prey tomorrow and if the speed's not up to much I'll send it back on sale or return and save up for the AF-S. Glad I didn't go for the Sigma f2.8 as the Nikon F4 is plenty heavy enough for me, being a girl and all : P
 
Glidergoth said:
Cheers. I read those reviews the other night and decided I was doing the right thing as I don't own any TCs yet. Going to try it out on some tame bird of prey tomorrow and if the speed's not up to much I'll send it back on sale or return and save up for the AF-S. Glad I didn't go for the Sigma f2.8 as the Nikon F4 is plenty heavy enough for me, being a girl and all : P
Click to expand...

Good plan, the older TC B's will work as will the Kenco ones, not as good as with the AF S, but how close you need to look to see a difference I do not know.

I lump a 500 f4 around most weekends, so the 300 f4 feels light ... however I do find myself thinking I am glad I did not get a 600mm ;)
 
Les McLean said:
I'm sorry you had a bad experience of this particular lens, I think it reflects the (possible) less than perfect quality control at Sigma, as there are many happy campers out there that are more than pleased with the lens.

The main reason I'm responding to your post, was the anxiety you raised regarding how soft it was a f2.8, and although I'm more than happy with the IQ of the lens, I thought I would just check, and it's as sharp at f2.8 as f4 and f5.6, just a slight vignetting at f2.8

I also compared it (at 200mm) against my canon 200mm F2.8L (which I know is sharp), and found you couldn't get a fag paper between the IQ at f2.8, although the bokeh on the canon was more pleasing.

So it put my mind at rest, and I'm not trying to shoot you down in flames, we all get a bit unlucky at times with photo gear, it's often a lottery.

When I was around 20 I was violently sick after drinking whisky most of the night, I've never touched whisky since, and even the smell of it makes me nauseous, but it hasn't had much of a dent on the sales of Johnny Walker :)

And I'm pleased the op has made his choice, I'm sure it will be a stellar performer.:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Review on the-digital-picture doesn't agree with that. And it it were true, it would be a first for any camera lens.

I don't think it's any surprise that the Sigma 120-300 is indeed rather a soft lens, and is really quite poor at f/2.8. It improves a lot at f/5.6, as you would expect. It's a very ambitious spec for a zoom, even at £2k.

Compared to a really good prime, the Canon 300L 2.8 just blitzes it, as here, even wide open. Not a fair comparison for sure, it just shows what can be done http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...nsComp=381&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&Camera=9
 
HoppyUK said:
Review on the-digital-picture doesn't agree with that. And it it were true, it would be a first for any camera lens.

I don't think it's any surprise that the Sigma 120-300 is indeed rather a soft lens, and is really quite poor at f/2.8. It improves a lot at f/5.6, as you would expect. It's a very ambitious spec for a zoom, even at £2k.

Compared to a really good prime, the Canon 300L 2.8 just blitzes it, as here, even wide open. Not a fair comparison for sure, it just shows what can be done http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...nsComp=381&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&Camera=9
Click to expand...

Sorry mate, but that is not true.

I have a Sigma 120-300 and it is nowhere near as crap as your alledging.
 
Mine is pretty good too - but then I don't shoot test charts. ;)
 
Comparing a prime to a zoom is also a nonsense. I do wish that people would comment when they had actual experience of the lens in question rather than believe what it says on`t web.
 
My Sigma 300mm 2.8 was pretty good too.
On the other hand my Canon 300mm 2.8 is much better, but was also 2.5 times more expensive so the price to quality ratio was I would say a bit more favourable for the Sigma as it was not 2.5 times worse. (well, not when used without a TC, with the 2x TC maybe it was much worse but this is not what is being discussed here).
 
As was my sigma 120-300, and its AF was fine at tracking fast jets through the mach loop.
 
Fast birds at close range are a stiffer test of a lens than aircraft, in general. It seems the angular rather than the linear speed is more relevant when panning, as is the change in camera-object distance over time (shorter camera-object distances being harder for the lens to cope with).

It would be nice if the reviews had some sort of testing of tracking ability (trickier to be quantitative, I realise, you would also need to standardise on a body for each of Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony etc.).

Andy
 
HoppyUK said:
Review on the-digital-picture doesn't agree with that. And it it were true, it would be a first for any camera lens.

I don't think it's any surprise that the Sigma 120-300 is indeed rather a soft lens, and is really quite poor at f/2.8. It improves a lot at f/5.6, as you would expect. It's a very ambitious spec for a zoom, even at £2k.

Compared to a really good prime, the Canon 300L 2.8 just blitzes it, as here, even wide open. Not a fair comparison for sure, it just shows what can be done http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...nsComp=381&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&Camera=9
Click to expand...


In this instance, I honestly don't think you know what you are talking about, you have no empirical evidence to back up your claims, also you are generalising one review to all other similar sigma lenses, which really has no validity.

Most respected togs take the word of other togs when they say they have observed something, obviously you don't, with an implication that I have been economical with the truth, generally I wouldn't need to do this, but I have compared each lens I mentioned.

120-300 @f2.8 at 300mm (with a 100% slice)
120-300 @f2.8 at 200mm (with 200%slice)
200mm F2.8L (with 200% slice)
7D tripod mounted, 1/200 sec ISO200, one flash.
No pp or sharpening, just resized for web

120-300 @ F2.8 at 300mm
300_f2_8.jpg


120-300mm @ F2.8 at 300mm 100% crop slice
300_f2_8_100.jpg


120-300 @f2.8 at 200mm
300_200.jpg


120-300 @ f2.8 at 200mm , 200% crop slice
300_200crop.jpg


200mm F2.8L @ f2.8
200.jpg


200mm F2.8L @f2.8 200% slice
200_200crop.jpg



As I mentioned the 120-300 F2.8 is sharp at F2.8, f4 etc, and I couldn't get a fag paper between the results of it compared to a 200mm F2.8L lens at 200mm at f2.8.
 
AndyElliott said:
Fast birds at close range are a stiffer test of a lens than aircraft, in general. It seems the angular rather than the linear speed is more relevant when panning, as is the change in camera-object distance over time (shorter camera-object distances being harder for the lens to cope with).

It would be nice if the reviews had some sort of testing of tracking ability (trickier to be quantitative, I realise, you would also need to standardise on a body for each of Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony etc.).

Andy
Click to expand...

I have tried a Canon 300 F2.8 (on a 1DII body), although it was only a short play, the tracking ability did appear better than the sigma 120-300 F2.8 (on the same body) I was using just before this play, we were shooting red kites in flight.
 
fracster said:
Comparing a prime to a zoom is also a nonsense. I do wish that people would comment when they had actual experience of the lens in question rather than believe what it says on`t web.
Click to expand...

There's a certain irony there Frac ;) And why can't you compare a prime to a zoom? That is exactly the question the OP is asking.

neil_g said:
agreed.

normally hoppy youre spot on but in this case i whole-heartedly disagree.
Click to expand...

I am saying that the Sigma 120-300 is not as sharp as a prime - any 300mm prime. Is that what you are disagreeing with?

Les McLean said:
In this instance, I honestly don't think you know what you are talking about, you have no empirical evidence to back up your claims, also you are generalising one review to all other similar sigma lenses, which really has no validity.

Most respected togs take the word of other togs when they say they have observed something, obviously you don't, with an implication that I have been economical with the truth, generally I wouldn't need to do this, but I have compared each lens I mentioned.

120-300 @f2.8 at 300mm (with a 100% slice)
120-300 @f2.8 at 200mm (with 200%slice)
200mm F2.8L (with 200% slice)
7D tripod mounted, 1/200 sec ISO200, one flash.
No pp or sharpening, just resized for web

<snip>

As I mentioned the 120-300 F2.8 is sharp at F2.8, f4 etc, and I couldn't get a fag paper between the results of it compared to a 200mm F2.8L lens at 200mm at f2.8.
Click to expand...

Les, I said that the Sigma 120-300 is sharper at f/5.6 than at f/2.8, which is hardly a contentious claim, when you said there was no difference. Now you have posted a series of shots all at f/2.8, which obviously doesn't support what you said at all.

I also posted a link to one of the most authoritative and respected lens review sites anywhere, which clearly supports what I said. If I didn't think their reviews were both thorough and technically sound, I wouldn't have linked it. TBH I have my doubts about using test charts for shorter focal lengths, but for long lenses they are good, and I believe them. The evidence is there.

You could perhaps say that maybe they had a poor test copy of the 120-300, but that is an entirely different matter.

Les, let me also comment on this quote, referring to me: "Most respected togs take the word of other togs when they say they have observed something, obviously you don't, with an implication that I have been economical with the truth..."

I have not implied that you have been economical with the truth at all, or have been dishonest in any way. What I am saying, and this is a completely differnt thing, is that I think you are mistaken, and that if you conducted duplicate tests to those on the-digital-picture you would see a difference in the performance between f/2.8 and f/5.6.

As for taking the word of respected togs as a matter of course, no, I don't automatically take anybody's word for anything. I'd be amazed if anybody does. I take what I see, understand and believe.
 
Richard, usually you do post sensible information on here. On the subject of this lens, you are incorrect.Owners and users have tried to explain this to you on this occasion.Yet I know that you will argue the point with rhetoric and web based reviews, please accept that on this rare occurrence, you are simply wrong.
 
fracster said:
Richard, usually you do post sensible information on here. On the subject of this lens, you are incorrect.Owners and users have tried to explain this to you on this occasion.Yet I know that you will argue the point with rhetoric and web based reviews, please accept that on this rare occurrence, you are simply wrong.
Click to expand...

Frac, all we have on here is rhetoric and web based reviews. That's kind of the point ;) But I would at least like to know what it is that I am wrong about.

I can only think that it's maybe where I said the 120-300 is "really quite poor at f/2.8" which you then interpreted as meaning "crap".

I didn't say crap, or imply that the entire lens was rubbish. I said it was "really quite poor at f/2.8" which compared to any 300mm prime (referring to the OP's question) it is. If I'm wrong on that, tell me why.

Edit: let's take you and me out of it, and instead of you asking me to simply take a leap of faith, please explain why this review is invalid. Compare these tests, by toggling between the arrows in the middle, just above the images.

Sigma 120-300, 300mm f/2.8 vs the same lens at f/5.6
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=3

Sigma 120-300, 300mm at f/4, vs a relatively modest prime, Canon 300L 4 also at f/4
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=111&CameraComp=9

And just to show what a really top level prime can do, Sigma 120-300, 300mm at f/2.8 again, vs Canon 300L 2.8 at f/2.8
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...omp=249&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLI=2&API=0
 
HoppyUK said:
Les, I said that the Sigma 120-300 is sharper at f/5.6 than at f/2.8, which is hardly a contentious claim, when you said there was no difference. Now you have posted a series of shots all at f/2.8, which obviously doesn't support what you said at all.

No, that's not what you said, and I quote 'I don't think it's any surprise that the Sigma 120-300 is indeed rather a soft lens, and is really quite poor at f/2.8'

I posted the results as I found at f2.8, and it is sharp, even compared to my canon 200 mm F2.8, there was no point in posting shots at f4 or f5.6, lenses that are sharp at f2.8 don't suddenly become soft at f5.6.

I also posted a link to one of the most authoritative and respected lens review sites anywhere, which clearly supports what I said. If I didn't think their reviews were both thorough and technically sound, I wouldn't have linked it. TBH I have my doubts about using test charts for shorter focal lengths, but for long lenses they are good, and I believe them. The evidence is there.

Perhaps you should read some of the other 'respected lens review sites' , I did before I purchased (s/h) the 120-300 F2.8, and it confirmed what most of them had said, it's an outstandingly sharp lens at all apertures. Your problem is that you are being very selective with your evidence.

You could perhaps say that maybe they had a poor test copy of the 120-300, but that is an entirely different matter.

Les, let me also comment on this quote, referring to me: "Most respected togs take the word of other togs when they say they have observed something, obviously you don't, with an implication that I have been economical with the truth..."

I have not implied that you have been economical with the truth at all, or have been dishonest in any way. What I am saying, and this is a completely differnt thing, is that I think you are mistaken, and that if you conducted duplicate tests to those on the-digital-picture you would see a difference in the performance between f/2.8 and f/5.6.

Unlike yourself, most togs would look at a range of reviews/opinions before making value judgements such as yours, if you did, you wouldn't make such sweeping and generally incorrect statements.

As for taking the word of respected togs as a matter of course, no, I don't automatically take anybody's word for anything. I'd be amazed if anybody does. I take what I see, understand and believe.
Click to expand...

Like most medium to high end lenses, you inevitably get a range of reviews/opinions, reflecting on this thread and others on TP, it seems most are more than happy at how sharp the lens is, some are less than happy, some think it's the best thing since sliced bread, others wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

I have produced supporting evidence to suggest that it is a sharp lens (even wide open), the respected reviewer at the digital picture com (same reference link as yours) stated 'It has decent sharpness wide open and gets really nice stopped down a stop or so'

I look forward to seeing your evidence of it being a soft lens and quite poor at f2.8?
 
Les McLean said:
<snip>

I look forward to seeing your evidence of it being a soft lens and quite poor at f2.8?
Click to expand...

I have done that Les, in the links posted above. Maybe your post crossed with my edit where I added the links for direct reference?

I am not saying the Sigma 120-300 is incapable of very good images - clearly that is not true.

What I am saying is that it is soft at f/2.8, it improves dramatically at higher f/numbers, and that there are better (cheaper) primes available. All of which I think is entirely consistent (and this is just my opinion) with a lens of this ambitious spec - which is what it is, even for £2k.
 
HoppyUK said:
I have done that Les, in the links posted above. Maybe your post crossed with my edit where I added the links for direct reference?

I am not saying the Sigma 120-300 is incapable of very good images - clearly that is not true.

What I am saying is that it is soft at f/2.8, it improves dramatically at higher f/numbers, and that there are better (cheaper) primes available. All of which I think is entirely consistent (and this is just my opinion) with a lens of this ambitious spec - which is what it is, even for £2k.
Click to expand...


Sorry, that's just the opinion of one review, and in that review the reviewer stated (based on his own test results) 'It has decent sharpness wide open and gets really nice stopped down a stop or so'

I still look forward to seeing your evidence that it is a soft lens and poor at f2.8 ?
 
HoppyUK said:
I am saying that the Sigma 120-300 is not as sharp as a prime - any 300mm prime. Is that what you are disagreeing with?
Click to expand...

if thats what you mean then fine, but thats not clear from what you wrote or the way you worded it, maybe it was the 2 statements in separate paragraphs (and a lot of people are interpreting your comment in the same way).

anyway..

scuse the crap examples, its all i have to hand at the moment:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2683/4477474782_7b127ba912_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2705/4477344298_22e432ff0c_b.jpg

and i have found a really boring test shot at 300mm @ 2.8 (poss a little shake):

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3529/3842549057_ba176351ba_b.jpg

no softness issues here that isnt user error (camera shake)
 
Les McLean said:
Sorry, that's just the opinion of one review, and in that review the reviewer stated (based on his own test results) 'It has decent sharpness wide open and gets really nice stopped down a stop or so'

I still look forward to seeing your evidence that it is a soft lens and poor at f2.8 ?
Click to expand...

The evidence is there Les! If you don't think that standard of quality is below par, then that's where we differ.

neil_g said:
if thats what you mean then fine, but thats not clear from what you wrote or the way you worded it, maybe it was the 2 statements in separate paragraphs (and a lot of people are interpreting your comment in the same way).

anyway..

scuse the crap examples, its all i have to hand at the moment:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2683/4477474782_7b127ba912_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2705/4477344298_22e432ff0c_b.jpg

and i have found a really boring test shot at 300mm @ 2.8 (poss a little shake):

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3529/3842549057_ba176351ba_b.jpg

no softness issues here that isnt user error (camera shake)
Click to expand...

That's what I mean, and I don't know how I could be any more clear about it.

It seems that those folks who own this lens think it's just great, and those that don't, do not. Nothing wrong with that, opinions vary, and either way it's absolutely fine by me.
 
In the end, those different opinions will have been made on different samples - Sigma has a poor QC reputation, but then again, Canon isn't exactly sparkling in this regard either.

What I have heard is the Sigma UK is very good about sorting out problems with their lenses - either by recalibration or replacement.

Andy
 
HoppyUK said:
The evidence is there Les! If you don't think that standard of quality is below par, then that's where we differ.



.
Click to expand...

That's just one review (of many), and the reviewers interpretation of the results was as I mentioned, ''It has decent sharpness wide open and gets really nice stopped down a stop or so'

Your interpretation of the same results is 'it is a soft lens and poor at f2.8 '

So your opinion is at odds with an 'authoritive and respected reviewer ?

I still look forward to seeing your evidence ?
 
Thanks for everyone's input. The AF (not really D) has gone back and I'll hold out for a second hand AF-S f/4 to come up (although the Sigma zoom sounds greeat as I found out today that a 300mm prime is a bit too long for raptor displays)
 
HoppyUK said:
Sigma 120-300, 300mm f/2.8 vs the same lens at f/5.6
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=3

Sigma 120-300, 300mm at f/4, vs a relatively modest prime, Canon 300L 4 also at f/4
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=111&CameraComp=9

And just to show what a really top level prime can do, Sigma 120-300, 300mm at f/2.8 again, vs Canon 300L 2.8 at f/2.8
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...omp=249&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLI=2&API=0
Click to expand...

Richard, i`m not falling out with anyone about what is personal opinion.My opinion is based on using the lens in the "real world",for want of a better description, and not from taking shots of test charts.

We shall have to agree to differ on this one bud......:)
 
fracster said:
Richard, i`m not falling out with anyone about what is personal opinion.My opinion is based on using the lens in the "real world",for want of a better description, and not from taking shots of test charts.

We shall have to agree to differ on this one bud......:)
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I'm certainly not falling out with anyone :thumbs:

And I'm not even sure we have to differ over much. We are talking about degrees of excellence - there cannot be much doubt that a £2k lens is capable of taking very good photos. And it is equally true that there are better lenses about, that are maybe not zooms and don't run to f/2.8 either. I think it's unique in that respect, in this range.

Those seem to be two halves of the same coin, rather than opposing views :)
 
HoppyUK said:
Those seem to be two halves of the same coin, rather than opposing views :)
Click to expand...

So it took all these words to agree with each other?.............:lol:

Take care mate................:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top